Should laws apply evenly to all citizens?

[Madison320]

Should laws apply evenly to all citizens? What if it's a bad law like drug laws? Suppose drugs were only illegal for tall people, not short people. Would this be better than making drugs illegal for eveyone? The reason I bring this up is my opposition to progressive taxation. I think progressive taxation is wrong because it punishes people unevenly. My example was that moving from a flat 10% tax for everyone to a 5% tax for certain people would be wrong because it is not consistent. So far I've only found one person that agrees with me. That's what has really surprised me.

[RCA]

Yes.

[Confederate]

That's what makes us citizens and not subjects.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Should laws apply evenly to all citizens?

Yes.


What if it's a bad law like drug laws? Suppose drugs were only illegal for tall people, not short people. Would this be better than making drugs illegal for eveyone?

Yes. If it is not possible to remove the illegality of the activity in question, the least amount possible should be punished.


The reason I bring this up is my opposition to progressive taxation. I think progressive taxation is wrong because it punishes people unevenly. My example was that moving from a flat 10% tax for everyone to a 5% tax for certain people would be wrong because it is not consistent. So far I've only found one person that agrees with me. That's what has really surprised me.

Cool story bro

Moving from a flat 10% tax for everybody to a 5% tax for some and 10% for the others is better than 10% for all, since less suffer at the more severe rate of 10%.

[Brett85]

No, if there is a bill that enhances liberty for some people but not all, it should still be supported.

[Zippyjuan]

Should a five year child be given the same penalty as a thirty year old?

[Occam's Banana]

I'll just repeat (most of) what I said in the other thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?399645-Is-it-wrong-to-lower-taxes-on-only-lower-income-earners&p=4801828&viewfull=1#post4801828

There is no non-arbitrary definition of "evenly". As a case in point, consider the following:

One man makes $10,000/year. Another man makes $10,000,000/year. They are both taxed $1000/year.

You would call this "even". I would call it grossly uneven. Neither of us could possibly "prove" that he is right or that the other is wrong.

"Even" means whatever anyone wants it to mean. The entire notion of "evenness" in this context is completely bogus. There is no such thing.

Therefore, the issue becomes one of who can physically force (or successfully threaten to physically force) his preferred interpretation of "even" on everyone else.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Should government laws apply?

would make a better thread.

[Dr.3D]

As it is now, the punishment for breaking most laws in disproportionate. Say you get pulled over for speeding. A rich person pays the same amount for every mile over as a poor person. The rich person doesn't mind paying that amount nearly as much as the poor person.

How is that fair? Shouldn't the penalty be the same for both and thus be the same percentage of their weekly income?

[presence]

As it is now, the punishment for breaking most laws in disproportionate. Say you get pulled over for speeding. A rich person pays the same amount for every mile over as a poor person. The rich person doesn't mind paying that amount nearly as much as the poor person.

How is that fair? Shouldn't the penalty be the same for both and thus be the same percentage of their weekly income?


I've pondered that one myself. What is the purpose in the fine? Does it serve its purpose evenly? How do you then fine the unemployed?

[Dr.3D]

I've ponder that one myself. What is the purpose in the fine? Does it serve its purpose evenly?
No it doesn't. It hurts the poor people more than it hurts the rich people. I've noticed a lot of the more expensive automobiles speeding past me than I do the less expensive automobiles. The fine should be a certain percentage of the weekly income of the drivers. A guy that only makes $100 a week would pay $10 or ten percent and a guy who makes $1000 a week would have to pay $100. Somebody who only makes $50 a week should pay $5.

[bolil]

As it is now, the punishment for breaking most laws in disproportionate. Say you get pulled over for speeding. A rich person pays the same amount for every mile over as a poor person. The rich person doesn't mind paying that amount nearly as much as the poor person.

How is that fair? Shouldn't the penalty be the same for both and thus be the same percentage of their weekly income?

First, the circumstances surrounding the stop should be analyzed. Speeding near a park, or a school (including colleges and universities) during hours, or through a work zone should be seen as an aggressive action and should be stopped. Speeding on a highway should not be. If someone kills another person because they were speeding on a highway, the crime is the slaying and not the speeding. I only make those exceptions because of A. Pedestrian Density, which increases the probability of a fatal speed related accident enough to be considered. and B. Young children may not yet fully grasp why they should look both ways, or the consequences if they do not.

Anyone caught belligerently putting other peoples property, or particularly lives, at risk should have more to worry about than a fine. I remember a guy driving at insanely high speeds through a residential neighborhood I was working in. We got him on camera, he didn't like the way us roofers handled him. Suits don't like being chewed out by working folk in public places. God bless the first amendment. Too bad we didn't have time to wait for a more private place.

[Dr.3D]

First, the circumstances surrounding the stop should be analyzed. Speeding near a park, or a school (including colleges and universities) during hours, or through a work zone should be seen as an aggressive action and should be stopped. Speeding on a highway should not be. If someone kills another person because they were speeding on a highway, the crime is the slaying and not the speeding. I only make those exceptions because of A. Pedestrian Density, which increases the probability of a fatal speed related accident enough to be considered. and B. Young children may not yet fully grasp why they should look both ways, or the consequences if they do not.

Anyone caught belligerently putting other peoples property, or particularly lives, at risk should have more to worry about than a fine. I remember a guy driving at insanely high speeds through a residential neighborhood I was working in. We got him on camera, he didn't like the way us roofers handled him. Suits don't like being chewed out by working folk in public places. God bless the first amendment. Too bad we didn't have time to wait for a more private place.

I'm just pointing out, 'Justice is only for the rich.' They can afford legal fees much better than the typical mundane.

[muzzled dogg]

laws?

[bolil]

I'm just pointing out, 'Justice is only for the rich.' They can afford legal fees much better than the typical mundane.

And I agree with you. I was just saying that rich or poor, if you put the lives/property of others at risk you should risk more than a fine.

Is it cruel and unusual to tune up a person that speeds past a playground populated by kids? I don't think so. What is unusual is that under the current system the rich are given favorable treatment on account of their being rich. I don't have any issues with honest, justly acquired, wealth.

A plumber's van is broken into, and thousands of dollars worth of tools are stolen, what do the cops do? Cursory investigation, followed by an "I hate to tell you this, but...".

A bank is robbed of thousands of dollars, and the police pursue the perpetrator with fanatical intensity.

[pcosmar]

laws?

Tax?

Seems to me that NO Tax for anyone would be pretty even,, and fair.

[The Free Hornet]

No, if there is a bill that enhances liberty for some people but not all, it should still be supported.

Like same-sex marriage?

[Brett85]

Like same-sex marriage?

"Same sex marriage" simply gives a certain group of people special rights. It has nothing at all to do with liberty.

[Zippyjuan]

"Same sex marriage" simply gives a certain group of people special rights. It has nothing at all to do with liberty.
Anybody should be able to marry whomever or whatever they want. A man and a man? A man and a woman? A man and his dog? A man and his daughter?

[TheTexan]

Laws should apply evenly to all citizens, except cops. They deserve their extra liberties by having such a dangerous job and being heroes and saving kitties from tall trees and etc.

Just my 2 cents

[heavenlyboy34]

Laws should apply evenly to all citizens, except cops. They deserve their extra liberties by having such a dangerous job and being heroes and saving kitties from tall trees and etc.

Just my 2 cents
lolz :D

[idiom]

Should laws apply evenly to all citizens? What if it's a bad law like drug laws? Suppose drugs were only illegal for tall people, not short people. Would this be better than making drugs illegal for eveyone? The reason I bring this up is my opposition to progressive taxation. I think progressive taxation is wrong because it punishes people unevenly. My example was that moving from a flat 10% tax for everyone to a 5% tax for certain people would be wrong because it is not consistent. So far I've only found one person that agrees with me. That's what has really surprised me.

This entire suggestion is bogus. The law in question is applied evenly. The Same tax laws apply to everyone. You choose how much you want to earn then you pay the appropriate tax.

Its not like its carving out a 5% higher tax rate for tall people.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

This entire suggestion is bogus. The law in question is applied evenly. The Same tax laws apply to everyone. You choose how much you want to earn then you pay the appropriate tax.

Its not like its carving out a 5% higher tax rate for tall people.


Oh, so you want to compare apples to apples, huh?

[Madison320]

This entire suggestion is bogus. The law in question is applied evenly. The Same tax laws apply to everyone. You choose how much you want to earn then you pay the appropriate tax.

Its not like its carving out a 5% higher tax rate for tall people.

Yeah, I had thought about that. Tax rates are different by income, not by individual, but I'm not totally buying that argument. It still seems uneven to me.

[presence]

Judge Learned Hand

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Dm4sFu73cJo/R5h8pTi3JEI/AAAAAAAAEds/VTEYer8MTtU/s400/01ahand-judge.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Dm4sFu73cJo/R5h8pTi3JEI/AAAAAAAAEds/VTEYer8MTtU/s1600-h/01ahand-judge.jpg)




Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible;
he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury;
there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.